Q&A: Freedom of Speech and Violence
Freedom of Speech and Violence
Question
Hello,
There’s a very interesting video here about freedom of speech and violence. Despite the general tendency toward progress, I tend to side with the radicals in this story.
I’d be very happy if the Rabbi would watch the video (it isn’t long) and express his opinion. It’s quite an important topic.
Thank you for everything!
The video – https://youtu.be/5ncnzGFMhR4
Answer
In principle, I am completely in favor of these actions. They are justified by every standard. Though it is not entirely clear that they use them only against those who are truly and obviously abusive. It seems a bit that, from their perspective, anyone who eats meat or keeps a cow in a way that doesn’t look right to them deserves to suffer.
This raises two other points: 1. Who decides when your opinion is objective enough, and when you are sufficiently right, that it justifies violence? I am not always convinced that these guys aren’t simply imposing their personal opinion. 2. The question of tactical effectiveness—whether it actually helps.
But in principle, when there is a place that is clearly abusing animals, they deserve that people do everything to them, and more. All those who cluck their tongues should think about a person who, before their eyes, takes a cat and rips out its claws one by one, then burns its flesh and beats it systematically all the time. Then think about another person for whom this is a way of life—this is what he does to all cats his entire life. Surely the police would come arrest him, and if not—everyone would support beating him to death. And here there is an institutionalized holocaust (yes, yes, I know the sensitivity and I don’t give a damn about it. This victimhood is the mother of all sin. That is where the whole “we are allowed to because we suffered…” comes from), and everyone talks about the violence and the improper methods they use. That is exactly what should be done, and even more.
The comparison between human beings and animals is ridiculous. People argue that those who preach morality toward animals behave violently toward human beings. I have never in my life heard such a stupid argument (and I’ve heard quite a lot of blatant stupidity in my life). A person persecutes animals and then claims that he is a human being and one may not be violent toward him. It is like someone pursuing another person claiming to the rescuer that he may not kill him in order to save the victim, because “who says his blood is redder?!” Don’t persecute, and there won’t be a problem. The same applies here. Simple.
Discussion on Answer
Roni, your generalizations are remarkably similar to theirs.
Some of them act against scientific experiments, some act against abuse of animals, and some act against eating them as such even without abuse. Each case should be judged on its own, and it is not true that they are all terrorists. In my opinion, the vast majority are not. And by the way, not every experiment on animals saves human lives. The vast majority are intended for purely scientific purposes that usually will not help medicine in any way.
Farmers who want to make a living from abusing animals—even if society is not ready for veganism—that is no excuse. We are also not ready for a full cessation of malicious speech, and still speaking maliciously or creating situations in which it is encouraged and practiced is an offense.
Indeed, sometimes compassion leads to a distortion of values—both compassion for animals and compassion for human beings. And yet, it is important to understand that there is a big difference: their distortion (= the “terrorists’”) has a good explanation. They are frustrated that society is indifferent, like you, to the systematic and organized suffering of animals for mere pleasure, and continues to engage in it systematically and enjoy it, and on top of that cynically condemns those who act against it. That frustration can lead them to improper actions and to broadening the front as above. But what is the excuse for your distortion (= the indifference, or the actual involvement in abusing animals)—yours, all of ours? We have no excuse or explanation other than surrender to hedonistic desire.
So I take my hat off to these “terrorists” (which I don’t have).
That’s not a generalization, because the video showed a picture of the monkey farm intended for experiments (if the video was edited dishonestly, then I retract that point). And even experiments for purely scientific purposes save human lives, because without basic research there will be no medical progress in the field.
First of all, dairy farmers are not abusing cows. True, there is a certain level of suffering in the constant flow of milk, but from there to abuse is a long way.
Second, malicious speech on the individual level is possible to stop right now even if society is not ready for it. Full veganism is also possible on the individual level but not on the societal level right now (not to mention that even if there were a deep cultural upheaval and all of society thought it was obligatory to move to veganism, this is a project whose implementation would take many years—and of course it cannot be done locally but only globally, because there is not enough agricultural land in Israel to feed the whole population).
I do not take my hat off to terrorists even if they are frustrated.
Well, an indifferent generalization with a hat on your head is still an indifferent generalization.
But seriously, the dairy farmer is not the address, and therefore persecuting him is an injustice (and also directly useless).
As stated, such a revolution cannot happen logistically overnight (or even from now to another 5 years) even if everyone wanted it with all their heart and soul. It would require preparing enormous agricultural areas all over the world for crop cultivation, a radical change in import and export processes, legal changes and dealing with existing contracts, etc., etc. And meanwhile people need to keep eating and drinking, dairy farmers need to keep milking, and slaughterers need to keep slaughtering, otherwise people will die of hunger.
If so, the dairy farmer is doing what he has to do in any case, even if such a revolution were decided upon.
The dairy farmer is not the address; rather, the general population is the address, and it alone can drive processes.
_____
P.S. At the moment it seems to me that most of the population (I mean those who have thought a bit about the issue and care about animal suffering) do not think that such a full and radical revolution is the right thing, and contrary to what you say, it is not only belly-pleasure that is involved here. What can be done here and now is to limit the most extreme cases. (By the way, I think the general solution will come from the development of synthetic meat.)
These terrorists even act violently against scientific experiments that lead to saving human lives, and thus ultimately bring about people’s deaths.
If so, it seems that compassion can sometimes lead to a distortion of values.
(And even when it comes to cows in dairy farms, they are criminals, because they are acting against people whose aim is not to abuse but to earn a living at a time when society is not ready for complete veganism.)